View Full Version : Is Sheffield the 4th or 5th largest city?


John
21-04-2003, 18:02
I keep reading that Sheffield is the 5th largest city from some posters in here.

I've always remembered it as being the 4th largest city, did someone beat it (Leeds maybe?) or was it always 5th?

Do a search on google

Sheffield 4th largest city

And

Sheffield 5th largest city

The following results were returned
4th = 5,250
5th = 4,920

Any explanation?

Michael_W
21-04-2003, 19:37
According to figures on this site http://www.demographia.com/db-ukcities.htm Englands top seven cities in terms of population are:

1 London
2 Birmingham
3 Leeds
4 Sheffield
5 Liverpool
6 Manchester (Not Greater Manchester)
7 Newcastle

This means Sheffield is 4th unless you count Manchester as Greater Manchester then Sheffield is the fifth largest.

Sidla
21-04-2003, 20:03
There's loads of conflicting stats out there though, I've read that it's the 3rd largest city before now.

Michael_W
21-04-2003, 20:59
True Sidla, the conflicting stats sometimes put us as as having a bigger population than Leeds ?

These sites http://populations.com and http://www.upmystreet.com/ give quite different statistics.

John
22-04-2003, 17:47
I would have thought that the size of a city is measured by its boundary, i.e., surface area, as appose to the number of people to determine the city size as it is a constant value.

I believe, if i am correct, the Tory Government changed the boundary in a clever way to merge Tory stronghold with a Labour stonghold, that wasn't as strong, so that they have a better chance of winning more seat at the election . (Could be true, but then I could have read some crap about this on the internet someplace.)

Which lead me to believe that Leeds got bigger this way which is why I wrote the original posting.

PaulTansley
22-04-2003, 18:38
London
Manchester
Birmingham
Bristol
Sheffield
Leeds
Newcastle

I believe

RPG
22-04-2003, 21:12
bristol is smaller than sheffield definatly

PaulTansley
23-04-2003, 21:53
You may be correct there though Sheffield is the hillyist

RPG
23-04-2003, 22:24
Originally posted by "The Cycleracer"

You may be correct there though Sheffield is the hillyist

easily! thers only 2 in bristol as far as i know ;)

takumi
24-04-2003, 18:47
uni of shef... says that it is the 4th biggest city..

tug
25-04-2003, 13:01
It is quite true sheffield is the UK's 4th city

People often mistake Manchester and Leeds to be bigger cities. however if you look at population within the city boundries Sheffield is bigger than both..

richard
26-11-2003, 15:43
This is what the UN has to say about the matter as at 1996. http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/citydata/default.asp?contid=5&cid=826

London 'Greater London' population 7,074,265.
Birmingham population 1,020,589
Leeds population 726,939
Glasgow population 616,430
Sheffield population 530,375
Bradford population 483,422
Liverpool population 467,995
Edinburgh population 448,850
Manchester population 430,818
Fife population 349,300
Cardiff population 315,040
Dudley population 312,194
Wigan population 309,786

I never knew Wigan or Dudley were so big.

nomme
26-11-2003, 15:59
Originally posted by richard
[Some stuff]

..who was that masked man??

Welcome back Richard. Long time no see.

Nomme

MrH
26-11-2003, 17:45
As I understand it, it is based on population, not area.

Sheffield is the fourth largest city in England, the fifth largest in the United Kingdom - so both are true!

Johnboy
26-11-2003, 17:47
Sheffield is the 4th largest city in England and 5th in the UK(Glasgow is larger than Sheffield)

rickmiles85
26-11-2003, 18:43
Originally posted by richard
This is what the UN has to say about the matter as at 1996. http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/citydata/default.asp?contid=5&cid=826

London 'Greater London' population 7,074,265.
Birmingham population 1,020,589
Leeds population 726,939
Glasgow population 616,430
Sheffield population 530,375
Bradford population 483,422
Liverpool population 467,995
Edinburgh population 448,850
Manchester population 430,818
Fife population 349,300
Cardiff population 315,040
Dudley population 312,194
Wigan population 309,786

I never knew Wigan or Dudley were so big.


Wigan Isnt! Its just a **** hole. Certainly doesnt feel like it has 310,000 ppl in it.

[Edited by Tony Ruscoe - fully masked swearing]

Moonolt
26-11-2003, 18:56
It depends on what you measure. In terms of official cities (admin. divisions), we're THIRD!!! in England and Wales... (According to the 2001 census it goes Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Croydon, Cardiff, Wakefield. And there are only 5200 people in London!)

Also, Sheffield is the tenth fattest! - www.muscle-fitness-europe.com/sei/s/526/f5.pdf

mk72
27-11-2003, 00:14
Leeds population 726,939

These figures include Otley, Wetherby and many other villages/Towns outside of Leeds, they decided to include areas outside of Leeds with an LS postcode!

It's like adding Rotherham, Dronfield and Chesterfield to the Sheffield population figures!

Leeds City Population is only 400, 000, Sheffield 500, 000 +.

t020
27-11-2003, 17:55
Originally posted by mk72
Leeds population 726,939

These figures include Otley, Wetherby and many other villages/Towns outside of Leeds, they decided to include areas outside of Leeds with an LS postcode!

It's like adding Rotherham, Dronfield and Chesterfield to the Sheffield population figures!

Leeds City Population is only 400, 000, Sheffield 500, 000 +.

That explains it! I was sure in my old Geography lessons we had books stating Leeds was smaller than Sheffield in population terms, so was surprised that all of a sudden Leeds had rocketed up to over 700,000 people. Surely how Leeds now measure their population is cheating!

WALTERS
27-11-2003, 19:19
I heard a rumor that Areas surroung sheffield have their names changed to Greater Sheffield (Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley) This would make the sheffield the 2nd or 3rd Largest city behind London and Greater Manchester if you count it. I think that this is a brilliant idea. Anybody got any views???

Tony
28-11-2003, 00:12
Then all that Sheffield will need is an open minded council and an economy to match.

rinty
28-11-2003, 12:48
Originally posted by t020
That explains it! I was sure in my old Geography lessons we had books stating Leeds was smaller than Sheffield in population terms, so was surprised that all of a sudden Leeds had rocketed up to over 700,000 people. Surely how Leeds now measure their population is cheating!

No probs. All we do is use the S postcode to do the same. I'd like to bet that would give us over 1 million :)

grep
28-11-2003, 18:34
The problem with determing Manchester's position in the list, and therefore
Sheffield's, is whether you consider only the area within Manchester's local
authority boundary or do you attempt to determine those areas which, though
outside of the council boundary, are clearly part of "the city".

For example Failsworth lies only a couple of mile north of the city centre and
feels like part of "the city" but is controlled from up the road in Oldham.
Large parts of the Metropolitan Boroughs of Bury, Stockport, Tameside and
Trafford are also geographically and emotionally part of "the city".

The other key consideration is Salford. Manchester and Salford can be seen as
twin cities which together constitute one greater city. Of course
Salfordian's wouldn't be pleased being called Mancunians.

What to name "the city" is the problem. Greater Manchester is unsuitable as it
includes Bolton and Wigan which are definitely not part of "the city". But "the
city" is more than just Manchester though that name is probably the best to
use.

Anyway using an extremely scientific method I took the figures from
http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/citydata/default.asp?contid=5&cid=826
and added together the populations of Manchester and Salford and to that total
added 1/5 of the populations of Bury, Stockport, Tameside and Trafford which gives a
rough figure of about 840,000 people.

That would probably make the order as:

London, Birmingham, Manchester/Salford, Leeds, Sheffield

g

(a Mancunian resident in Sheffield)

rickmiles85
28-11-2003, 18:46
One thing I dont really understand why it ever happened was to link all the boroughs around manchester into greater manchester. quite rightly said by "grep". Wigan is classed as Greater manchester but its flippin miles from the place! its like saying Barnsley is part of Sheffield when it evidently isnt! what is so special about manchester that made it have the greater attached to its name? Birmingham is far greater/bigger than Manchester? so why wasnt the west midlands named Greater Birmingham when the previous counties were broken up in the 1970s? really there is only one city and its surrounding areas should be called greater and that is london.:confused:

Tony
29-11-2003, 10:29
Is there any special reason that my relevant posts and others responses have been deleted fropm this thread??

grep
30-11-2003, 01:38
Originally posted by rickmiles85
One thing I dont really understand why it ever happened was to link all the boroughs around manchester into greater manchester. quite rightly said by "grep". Wigan is classed as Greater manchester but its flippin miles from the place! its like saying Barnsley is part of Sheffield when it evidently isnt! what is so special about manchester that made it have the greater attached to its name? Birmingham is far greater/bigger than Manchester? so why wasnt the west midlands named Greater Birmingham when the previous counties were broken up in the 1970s? really there is only one city and its surrounding areas should be called greater and that is london.:confused:

If Greater Manchester had instead been named South Lancashire and Lancashire named North Lancashire then there would have been many happier Lancastrians many of whom feel they have been deprived of their county.

Of course the problem is that Greater Manchester includes bits of what was Cheshire (ie Stockport).

g

David Bowler
30-11-2003, 19:47
I think the dispute is between Leeds & Sheffield and depending on your point of view you can take population or area and this is where the misunderstanding lies, so there may not be an answer.

SheffieldSean
01-12-2003, 17:25
Greater Manchester came into existence as a result of the 1974 local Government changes under the Maud Report.

Steve Cooper
23-12-2003, 16:55
In view of the fact that Leeds (says he spitting) is currently one of the UK boom towns and Sheffield has been in economic decline for the last 3 decades, it would come as no surprise to find that it was now bigger than Sheffield by almost any measure other than poverty.

I think that you'll find that Greater Manchester was one of Heseltine's Metropolitan County Councils, along with South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands etc, so you'd expect it to be considerably larger than either Sheffield or Leeds.

Its all a bit academic, because it won't be long before the likes of Milton Keynes, Swindon and Reading(!) overtake us all.

Belle
23-12-2003, 18:02
Oh please, not this old chestnut AGAIN

Surely we are into our twentieth merged thread again

When will you people learn?

Sheffield IS the best city in the world

It DOES have the best surrounding countryside

It DOES have a great cultural quarter and a wonderful winter garden

The residents ARE massively more attractive, and now we know, more intelligent

BUT we dont register on many scales

and that is a GOOD thing, is it not?

Otherwise we would be over run with wannabees.

Let it go, celebrate quietly and dont TELL anyone, otherwise they will all want to be here and then it will be crap

B
xxxx

Steve Cooper
23-12-2003, 19:28
"Oh please, not this old chestnut AGAIN ...

...Let it go, celebrate quietly and dont TELL anyone, otherwise they will all want to be here and then it will be crap "


NO! NO! and thrice NO!

It is the duty, I say, of all true citizens of Sheffield to uphold the superiority of there homeland over the pretender that is Leeds in all respects, regardless of truth, relevance or reason. If we cannot defeat them by real and meaningful facts alone, then we must make some up, bend and distort, divert attention. It is our duty, I say.

And heres one for starters - Sheffielders resent them buggers from Leeds with greater passion than they could ever muster against us.

Come on - raise the banners high, tell yours lies with pride.

Belle
23-12-2003, 21:16
Cough

Cough

Well I dont even live in South Yorkshire, as most of you have notced, let alone in Sheffield

I am probably closer to Leeds than I am to Sheffield

But personally I would rather the southern err......people.....errrr.....let us not use rude words....flock to Leeds and mess that up than they come to Sheffield.

But as a non-native I do regretfully back off and let you all choose

To be full of people from down there if that is what you want

or to be a sweet secret

r712t460
24-12-2003, 07:50
I always thought that Sheffield was the 4th biggest in England, but the 5th biggest in the United Kingdom???

Nosferatu
24-12-2003, 09:04
You have discussed population and to some extent land boundries, but have the owned boundries been taken into account? Sheffield owns a huge portion of derbyshire, as well as having absorbed districts and villages, like stocksbridge, rotherham, and barnsley is on the verge of being taken over. So - as Sheffield boundries extend way beyond those marked on the map as being Sheffield - where would we come in the list then?

Of course - as far as I am concerned - Sheffield born and bred, as are my ancestors - Sheffield should be the Capital of Britain.

*Play patriotic music*

Nosferatu

rickmiles85
24-12-2003, 15:13
Thanks to one of my friends who was researching information on Leeds because he has applied to University there discovered this:

Here (http://www.leedsnet.com/gl//staticpages/index.php?page=20020905110837901)

Bottom of the page linked above.

"In the late 20th century tourism became a major employer. The Royal Armouries museum opened in 1995. The Thackray medical museum followed in 1997. The Monet Garden in Roundhay Park was opened in 1999. Merrion Shopping Centre was built in 1964. A new shopping arcade was built in the early 1970s. It was called The Bond Street Centre. Later it was refurbished and renamed Leeds Shopping Plaza. St Johns Shopping Centre was built in 1983. White Rose Shopping Centre opened in 1997. In the early 1970s the city centre was pedestrianised. Radio Leeds began broadcasting in 1968. In 1990 the West Yorkshire Playhouse theatre opened. The Royal Armouries Museum opened in Leeds in 1996. Today the population of the metropolitan district is about 724,000. The population of the actual city of Leeds is about 421,000"

That would make Sheffield third largest city right?

Mr BusDriver
27-12-2003, 00:09
[i]Originally posted by richard
Sheffield population 530,375


Richard is that before we got all the illegal bin-lardens in Sheffield
(All of them at the 75/76 bus stop in the Markets)!!!!!!!!!

367squadron
30-12-2003, 19:50
aaaawwwww these idiots are doin me 'ed in!!!!!Click here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?thread=%3C1071751561-12338.60%40forum0.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&find=%3C1071751561-12338.60%40forum0.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&board=england.leeds&sort=Te)

grep
07-01-2004, 05:38
Originally posted by Steve Cooper
Its all a bit academic, because it won't be long before the likes of Milton Keynes, Swindon and Reading(!) overtake us all.

Aaargh no! I have had so spend too much time in Milton Keynes recently and whilst the place might be big I cannot accept it as a city. The city centre reminds me of Centertainment! And where are the pedestrians? City centres should not be car parks!

g

max
16-02-2004, 08:12
This article in The Star should settle all arguments about which is the biggest city:

Communities hit back ..... (http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=740358)

According to the article:

...the Sheffield Watch Association North (SWAN) covers 110,000 square miles of Sheffield and embraces 435 neighbourhood watch organisations.

Which by my calculation means that Sheffield contains the UK in its boundaries.:loopy:

fuzzy
16-02-2004, 11:53
If we are so big - Why do they never put us on the weather map??? :loopy:

Cos nobody needs to know where we are ;) :thumbsup: ;)

t020
16-02-2004, 20:15
Originally posted by fuzzy
If we are so big - Why do they never put us on the weather map??? :loopy:

Cos nobody needs to know where we are ;) :thumbsup: ;)


They quite often do now, actually. I've noticed the BBC have started showing Sheffield more often on their main weather, and other cities too that they don't usually show, though admittedly they still show other cities like Manchester a lot more.

geronimo
16-02-2004, 20:30
Who gives a damn.
Tick the boxes .

Do you like living here?

Is it a beautifull city ?

Do you want hordes of ignorant southern gits moving here? and paying stupid money for property

t020
16-02-2004, 20:35
Do you like living here? Yes

Is it a beautifull city ? Yes and No

Do you want hordes of ignorant southern gits moving here? and paying stupid money for property Yes

Lancs_Vinnie
17-06-2004, 07:06
Originally posted by richard
This is what the UN has to say about the matter as at 1996. http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/citydata/default.asp?contid=5&cid=826

London 'Greater London' population 7,074,265.
Birmingham population 1,020,589
Leeds population 726,939
Glasgow population 616,430
Sheffield population 530,375
Bradford population 483,422
Liverpool population 467,995
Edinburgh population 448,850
Manchester population 430,818
Fife population 349,300
Cardiff population 315,040
Dudley population 312,194
Wigan population 309,786

I never knew Wigan or Dudley were so big.


I live in a village in between St. Helens and Wigan and the reason that Wigan is quoted as having a population of 310,000 is because following the local government reorganisation in 1974, Wigan Metropolitan Borough was one of six metropolitan areas that was formed. The creation of this new borough swallowed up several neighbouring Lancashire towns and villages, e.g. Leigh, Ashton-in-Makefield, Golborne, Atherton and Tyldesley plus many, many smaller places, taking the Wigan MBC boundary all the way up to the Salford border. Consequently, Wigan, which had previously been a medium sized town (approx. 100,000 pop.) suddenly jumped up the national table to make it the 12th largest metropolitan district in the country, and now spans the full distance across from Merseyside to Greater Manchester.

The problem with all this carving up was that whilst it may have suited to have local administrative boundaries, certain identities became blurred, and even lost. For example, I live just inside, and pay council tax to, St. Helens Borough, but have a Wigan postcode and Wigan telephone number. Until only a few years ago we used to come under the Preston Area (!!!) phonebook, and currently come under the Wigan and Bolton Area (!!!) Yellow Pages. We are in the Parliamentary Ward of St. Helens North, and our Euro Ward (!!) is Merseyside East, despite our address signifying we live in Greater Manchester...!?! Just south of us is Haydock (part of St. Helens, Merseyside), which was lumbered with a Warrington, Cheshire postcode somewhere along the way and just east of us is Ashton-in-Makerfield (pop. 35,000) part of which sits in St. Helens Borough and part of which sits in Wigan Borough. Confused.....??? You bet.....!!

Why can't we just go back to Lancashire, please.....?!?!?!

Agent Dan
17-06-2004, 07:41
Originally posted by t020
Do you want hordes of ignorant southern gits moving here? and paying stupid money for property Yes

Funnily enough, t020, your opinions (generally) would be acceptred more readily down south... :P

Draggletail
17-06-2004, 15:59
I always thought it was London, birmingham, manchester, sheffield being the fourth. That was the statistic in the eighties anyway, i'm sure:confused:

rickmiles85
17-06-2004, 16:51
Are you in somewhere like Newton Le Willows?



Originally posted by Lancs_Vinnie
I live in a village in between St. Helens and Wigan and the reason that Wigan is quoted as having a population of 310,000 is because following the local government reorganisation in 1974, Wigan Metropolitan Borough was one of six metropolitan areas that was formed. The creation of this new borough swallowed up several neighbouring Lancashire towns and villages, e.g. Leigh, Ashton-in-Makefield, Golborne, Atherton and Tyldesley plus many, many smaller places, taking the Wigan MBC boundary all the way up to the Salford border. Consequently, Wigan, which had previously been a medium sized town (approx. 100,000 pop.) suddenly jumped up the national table to make it the 12th largest metropolitan district in the country, and now spans the full distance across from Merseyside to Greater Manchester.

The problem with all this carving up was that whilst it may have suited to have local administrative boundaries, certain identities became blurred, and even lost. For example, I live just inside, and pay council tax to, St. Helens Borough, but have a Wigan postcode and Wigan telephone number. Until only a few years ago we used to come under the Preston Area (!!!) phonebook, and currently come under the Wigan and Bolton Area (!!!) Yellow Pages. We are in the Parliamentary Ward of St. Helens North, and our Euro Ward (!!) is Merseyside East, despite our address signifying we live in Greater Manchester...!?! Just south of us is Haydock (part of St. Helens, Merseyside), which was lumbered with a Warrington, Cheshire postcode somewhere along the way and just east of us is Ashton-in-Makerfield (pop. 35,000) part of which sits in St. Helens Borough and part of which sits in Wigan Borough. Confused.....??? You bet.....!!

Why can't we just go back to Lancashire, please.....?!?!?!

Lancs_Vinnie
18-06-2004, 06:58
Garswood. A small village just to the west of Ashton-in-Makerfield, on the railway line between Wigan and St.Helens.

How's it going up Standish way (the Beverley Hills of Wigan).....??

rickmiles85
18-06-2004, 12:25
Oh I know where that is, its not that far from Three Sisters really.

mer1002
19-06-2004, 20:26
I work for directory enquiries ... and southport still comes under lancashire!!

rickmiles85
19-06-2004, 20:43
No it doesnt! not anymore. Its got a preston PR postcode but its comes under Merseyside! West Lancashire is pretty close but it stops on the outskirts of Southport.

mer1002
20-06-2004, 19:57
It's under lancashire on our database .. but thats BT for you ...Its probably because of the preston postcode.

skyfitsboy
14-07-2004, 11:48
Please see the SheffieldFirst Partnership website:

http://www.sheffieldfirst.net/

Sheffield is a city of more than half a million people. It lies at the southern end of England's Pennine hills, within the county of Yorkshire on its border with the forests of Nottinghamshire and the Derbyshire Dales. It is Yorkshire's second largest city after Leeds, the regional capital. Sheffield ranks as the United Kingdom's fifth largest city, but because it is a free-standing city it forms only the eighth largest conurbation.

If it is true that Leeds bloated its population figures by including small towns within it's LS postcode then Sheffield is INDEED larger than Leeds!

rickmiles85
14-07-2004, 12:05
I think that is the case....
If we included areas within our postcode we could include most towns and villages from penistone, barsnley down to rotherham, chesterfield and villages in the peak district to dinnington and worksop. You speak to most people in Lancashire and indeed the country and ask what is the capital of yorkshire and people immediatly say "Steel City".

http://www.channel4.com/history/timeteam/2004_sheff.html#

"Built on seven hills and five rivers the Don and its four tributaries, the Loxley, Rivelin, Porter and the Sheaf Sheffield is the biggest city in Yorkshire and the fourth biggest in England. Its population is around 600,000"

danielford99
14-07-2004, 13:18
Is it me or is anyone sick of hearing about Leeds. It is nowhere near as big as Sheffield. I work for Sheffield City Council and I know for a fact that Sheffield is the 4th Biggest City, Leeds doesn't even make the top 10.

On the news and weather, papers, radio, they are always talking about Leeds. Ok Leeds City centre is a good night out and not bad for shopping (Harvey Nich's etc), but most of Leeds is one big tip.

simjns
17-07-2004, 00:18
london
birmingham
manchester
sheffield
when i was at uni we was told that sheffield was the forth largest city

jazz
18-07-2004, 01:09
Originally posted by danielford99
Is it me or is anyone sick of hearing about Leeds. It is nowhere near as big as Sheffield. I work for Sheffield City Council and I know for a fact that Sheffield is the 4th Biggest City, Leeds doesn't even make the top 10.

On the news and weather, papers, radio, they are always talking about Leeds. Ok Leeds City centre is a good night out and not bad for shopping (Harvey Nich's etc), but most of Leeds is one big tip.


I can't agree more. It anooys me so much that yorkshire tv is based there so all we ever hear about is how wonderful leeds is- they are so biased when it comes to sport too- whenever united or wednesday won leeds there would be a fleeting mention and whenever leeds won it would be extended highlights!

Tony
18-07-2004, 08:32
Ummm.. well in the Census results I recently saw (from memory), Leeds had 712,000 people living there compared to Sheffield's 530,000.

skyfitsboy
18-07-2004, 16:44
The City of Leeds has a population of about 421,000 people. The 724,000 population figure takes in a much wider area, more than 520 sq km to be precise, which is roughly an area 24km by 24km, and you can safely say from this, that will take in towns surrounding Leeds like Dewsbury, Ossett, Garforth, Wakefield and Batley for instance, which are all separate towns and boroughs!!

Please see link for details:

http://www.leedsnet.com/gl//staticpages/index.php?page=20020905110837901

This is yet another example of Leeds cleverly marketing itself.

If Sheffield was to use it's latest population of the metropolitan district of sheffield has it's total it would be 1,0783,17 which consists of:

Sheffield - 513,234
Rotherham - 248,175
Barnsley - 218,063
Chesterfield - 98,845

Info from the National Statistics Office: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/00cg.asp

Tony
24-07-2004, 07:33
Well I had the pleasure of watching the Sheffield First promotion video, and just about the first thing they say is that Sheffield is the UK's 5th largest city.

skyfitsboy
24-07-2004, 11:09
So if were the 5th largest in the UK, (which includes Glasgow, bigger than Sheffield) that would make us the 4th biggest in England, yeah?

Plain Talker
24-07-2004, 12:05
Originally posted by skyfitsboy
Please see the SheffieldFirst Partnership website:

http://www.sheffieldfirst.net/

Sheffield is a city of more than half a million people. It lies at the southern end of England's Pennine hills, within the county of Yorkshire on its border with the forests of Nottinghamshire and the Derbyshire Dales. It is Yorkshire's second largest city after Leeds, the regional capital. Sheffield ranks as the United Kingdom's fifth largest city, but because it is a free-standing city it forms only the eighth largest conurbation.

If it is true that Leeds bloated its population figures by including small towns within it's LS postcode then Sheffield is INDEEDlarger than Leeds!

who "T-F" told "Sheffield First" that "mucky" leeds was the reigional capital?

it bloomin' well wasnt! (she said, bristling!) ;)

and it isn't!

When we were all one county, the capital was York... as in

"York's shire "

(and if anything, i would still defer/ refer to York as the authority in ruling matters)

Same as Gloucester's Shire, and Lancaster's Shire (lancashire) and Chester's shire, Cheshire?

and not forgetting our next-door neighbours.. Derby's Shire!

no?

And regarding the local governmental shake up in the 1970's when we had county councils, it still was not ruled from "Mucky" leeds:- South Yorkshire's County Council had it's adminiatrative centre in Doncaster.

When the Vikings were ruling this area, over a thousand years ago, we were under the danelaw.. We did have the Ridings (norse.. "third-ings") but leeds did not figure, even then.

Yes we are the fourth largest city in England

Proud of my Nordic/ danelaw roots, I am!

P "defer to leeds? never! " T ;)

saxon51
24-07-2004, 12:16
I'm a Saxon myself PT, but well done for refering to leeds with no capital 'L'. It's the little things that matter:thumbsup:

Plain Talker
24-07-2004, 12:48
Originally posted by markham
I'm a Saxon myself PT, but well done for refering to leeds with no capital 'L'. It's the little things that matter:thumbsup:

sorry, Markham, but you now owe me a new keyboard!!!!

reading your comment, above, and sipping on a diet-coke just does not mix!

P "wonders if i can spin-dry my Keyboard!" T

(P.S. hmmmm .... I wonder if the non-capitalised "l" was a freudian slip on my part?)

Pilon
24-07-2004, 22:04
I am a true Sheffielder, through and through.

I have always heard that Sheff is the 4th biggsest city in the UK, and I am quick to tell anybody that "fact".

However, I heard from my grandad recently, that Sheffield was always known as "a dirty picture in a golden frame", especially at the time of the industrial revolution.

Not too sure about the relevance of that...

Also, let me just quickly and concisely say, I went to Thomas Rotherham College for two years, but the town of Rotherham should never be considered part of Steel City, for although the place holds a strange place in my heart (even though it is slightly out of phase with the rest of the Universe and home to the Chuckle Brothers...) the best thing ever to come out of it is the road to Sheffield.

I've said too much.

Plain Talker
24-07-2004, 22:17
The Dirty Picture In a Golden frame ephithet about Sheffield was true right up to the Clean Air Acts of 1954 and 1968.

As a child in the 1960's I remember a lot of buildings that had been blackened by the soot and grime from coal fires, and Industry being cleaned up, and restored to their original splendour, and brightness. (including a lot of the 1870's schools, and the Town Hall)

PT

rickmiles85
25-07-2004, 16:10
Originally posted by Plain Talker
who "T-F" told "Sheffield First" that "mucky" leeds was the reigional capital?

it bloomin' well wasnt! (she said, bristling!) ;)

and it isn't!

When we were all one county, the capital was York... as in

"York's shire "

(and if anything, i would still defer/ refer to York as the authority in ruling matters)

Same as Gloucester's Shire, and Lancaster's Shire (lancashire) and Chester's shire, Cheshire?

and not forgetting our next-door neighbours.. Derby's Shire!

no?

And regarding the local governmental shake up in the 1970's when we had county councils, it still was not ruled from "Mucky" leeds:- South Yorkshire's County Council had it's adminiatrative centre in Doncaster.

When the Vikings were ruling this area, over a thousand years ago, we were under the danelaw.. We did have the Ridings (norse.. "third-ings") but leeds did not figure, even then.

Yes we are the fourth largest city in England

Proud of my Nordic/ danelaw roots, I am!

P "defer to leeds? never! " T ;)


Your very right about lancashire and chester ruling over the counties. Many people think that Manchester is the regional capital of Lancashire being biggest, it is of Grt Manc but Grt Manc and Merseyside were formed from Lancashire originally to create the Metropolitan Borough Councils which Sheffield as Leeds are apart of with South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire respectivley.

If the population of leeds is only 421,000, why has the National Office for statistics (census) stated it as 712,000 then? The whole idea of a census is to give people an accurate size of places which in turn give us the total population of England/Uk.

Ive always been brought up to believe Sheffield is and was Englands 4th, and Uks 5th Largest city. 5th to Glasgow in the Uk

Plain Talker
25-07-2004, 18:38
Rickmiles,

As someone already mentioned earlier in this thread;

The reason for the "vast and wild" (IMHO) over-estimate of the size of "mucky" leeds as compared to Sheffield, is because they also count the surrounding satellite-towns in with the numbers, (Wakefield, etc) partially because they have a leeds (LSXXX) postcode...

Rather as *we* in Sheffield could inflate *our* figures, if we chose, by encapsulating our satellite towns such as Rotherham and Barnsley, and possibly as far out as Chesterfield, too, seeing as they have Sheffield Postcodes S60's and S70's in the case of Rotherham and Barnsley, and S40/S43 in the case of Chesterfield.

leeds has a slightly over 400/ 410,000 population, if you take the actual population of the leeds city footprint, with almost a 3/4 of a million if you include the likes of Pudsey and Wakefield etc.

Without inflating our population by adding in satellite towns, we would still beat leeds, by a good 100.000, if leeds factored out the satellite towns

We still are the 4th largest city!

PT

saxon51
25-07-2004, 18:42
Glad to see your keyboard (minus the 'L') is working again PT!!:thumbsup:

Plain Talker
25-07-2004, 18:46
Originally posted by markham
Glad to see your keyboard (minus the 'L') is working again PT!!:thumbsup:

ChuckLes...

NO, Markham, you have me aLL wrong ( ;) )

it's my siLLy, LittLe oLd shift key that is (!coff!) fauLty

it wiLL not work properLy.....

;)

pLain taLker
XX

saxon51
25-07-2004, 18:54
nOw yOu!re beginning tO sOund like a fireman PT. Jeez, i'Ve caught it aswell. i nd a rest m8, im diteeriatin fst. aaargh!:(

Plain Talker
25-07-2004, 19:07
Originally posted by markham
nOw yOu!re beginning tO sOund like a fireman PT. Jeez, i'Ve caught it aswell. i nd a rest m8, im diteeriatin fst. aaargh!:(

Oh dear, Markham,

That's a new keyboard you owe me!

"Splutter!"

PT

rickmiles85
25-07-2004, 20:07
Actually Wakefield doesnt have a LS postcode, its WFxx

rickmiles85
25-07-2004, 20:09
""The reason for the "vast and wild" (IMHO) over-estimate of the size of "mucky" leeds as compared to Sheffield, is because they also count the surrounding satellite-towns in with the numbers, (Wakefield, etc) partially because they have a leeds (LSXXX) postcode...""

I understand what you are saying, I commented on it earlier in the posts, but WHY do they include surrounding area's as "Leeds" when they are clearly not.

alchresearch
26-07-2004, 18:39
Originally posted by rickmiles85
""The reason for the "vast and wild" (IMHO) over-estimate of the size of "mucky" leeds as compared to Sheffield, is because they also count the surrounding satellite-towns in with the numbers, (Wakefield, etc) partially because they have a leeds (LSXXX) postcode...""

I understand what you are saying, I commented on it earlier in the posts, but WHY do they include surrounding area's as "Leeds" when they are clearly not.

Yep, I agree. I guess you're classed as "Greater Manchester" like me if you're in Wigan. So is Oldham and Rochdale but they must be 30 miles away!

rickmiles85
26-07-2004, 18:54
Yes im classed as Greater Manchester, only in the boarder by about 2 miles. Not much really. Yea, its weird how I can be in the same county as Rochdale and Oldham yet they arnt that far away for Huddersfield! lol

alchresearch
26-07-2004, 18:55
Rochdale and Oldham badly need their own county - Grotshire.

Sorry if anyone from there is reading this but these two towns are absolute holes!

Standish is nice, know a few people from there. I think you should get a petition to move it out of the boundary!

rickmiles85
26-07-2004, 19:12
LOL, to be honest. Most people say Lancashire not Greater Manchester. Its an alright place I suppose, Its like most places-have there good and bad sides.

dansufc
05-08-2004, 21:18
leeds is not as big as Sheffield but all the time it gets a mention children in need one of their party's is in leeds why not Sheffield we are bigger and better city

skyfitsboy
11-08-2004, 10:53
is hallam FM still broadcast from Sheffield?

alchresearch
11-08-2004, 12:05
Originally posted by skyfitsboy
is hallam FM still broadcast from Sheffield?


Yes, still off Herries Road.

fhain29
12-08-2004, 12:54
This debate has been raging for years and is really very easy to answer. Sheffield is the fourth largest LOCAL AUTHORITY in England and Wales and the fifth largest in Great Britain. The figures are collated by the census and in between estimated by the National Office of Statistics. Of course, some local authorities are called "cities" but others aren't.

These statistics relate, as I said, to the number of inhabitants in local authority areas.

In the case of Leeds (third largest local authority in England and Wales), the local authority includes places like Wetherby and Tadcaster, which aren't necessarily in the contigious urban area, but doesn't include Bradford or Wakefield, which are.

Sheffield includes Stocksbridge and Bradfield, which aren't in the built up area either, but doesn't include Rotherham or Dronfield, which are.

In the case of Manchester, the local authority is a very small area. To get from the city centre to Old Trafford, you go through no countyside, yet cross the border from Manchester to Trafford. It's the same case with Salford (where the border is IN the city centre, imagine walking down Fargate and seeing the sign "Welcome to Rotherham"), and to a lesser extent parts of Tameside and Stockport boroughs. There's no place more Mancunian than Old Trafford, yet it's not in the local authority called Manchester.
The same is true with Birmingham, which runs into Sandwell and Dudley and well as other local authorities.

So it's easy to measure the population the size of local authorities, but not of cities within them, because the discussion then starts about where the stop and where they start. And that's a discussion which is never-ending.

Let's just settle for Sheffield being the fourth largest local authority in England and Wales, and the fifth largest local authority in the UK.

Ned Ludd
12-08-2004, 13:48
6 unecessary pages on this topic. The answer is quite unimportant because Sheffield is the BEST!:thumbsup:

goat
12-11-2004, 18:37
There's lots of confusion about this as stats are taken differently (i.e. inner city etc) but this is the governments official rankings:

1.London
2.Birmingham
3.Manchester
4.Glasgow
5.Sheffield
6.Bristol
7.Newcastle
8.Leeds
9.Liverpool
10.Southampton

These stats include Manchester the city. These are up to date as well as populations change! Leeds has lost quite a few people. There's also confusion about London's official population. As a city it has 9.5million people, as a metropilan it has 12million! It is bigger than New York, just want to clarify that!

t020
12-11-2004, 20:22
Originally posted by goat
There's lots of confusion about this as stats are taken differently (i.e. inner city etc) but this is the governments official rankings:

1.London
2.Birmingham
3.Manchester
4.Glasgow
5.Sheffield
6.Bristol
7.Newcastle
8.Leeds
9.Liverpool
10.Southampton

These stats include Manchester the city. These are up to date as well as populations change! Leeds has lost quite a few people. There's also confusion about London's official population. As a city it has 9.5million people, as a metropilan it has 12million! It is bigger than New York, just want to clarify that!

So that makes Sheffield the 4th biggest in England and 5th in the UK then, which is what I always thought. Could you provide a URL for these rankings though? Also, how old are the figures?

ToryCynic
12-11-2004, 21:12
Goat and t020 - I always had your city as the fourth largest city... all the figures had it down as that, I'm sure. Not all this "4th largest local authority, but 5th largest city" lark.

Alex

nuf_said
12-11-2004, 22:42
I used to hear Sheffield was the UK's BIGGEST village - and I think that's true in a good sort of way. Let's celebrate that.

The argument about size of city seems to depend on the definition of size and the statistics you care to use - a never ending discussion. If it seems to refer to the size of the postcode area - that's cheating.

t020
12-11-2004, 22:49
Originally posted by nuf_said
I used to hear Sheffield was the UK's BIGGEST village - and I think that's true in a good sort of way. Let's celebrate that.

The argument about size of city seems to depend on the definition of size and the statistics you care to use - a never ending discussion. If it seems to refer to the size of the postcode area - that's cheating.

As far as I know the above rankings are based on population.

goat
12-11-2004, 23:47
Sorry I didn't get the stats off the internet, they came from a home office document. If you go to the local library and ask for the 2003 home office stats they show you to it. The 2004 stats will be out in mid 2005. However Local authority is a stupid definition as this determines government and not population. For example I lived in Ipswich and Ipswich's population as a town was 113,340. However the local authority stretched all the way to Colchester, some 20 miles away as the population is thin and widespread. That would then take the population of Ipswich up to about 600,000 and similarly that of Colchester up to about 400,000 which is mis-guided and plain dumb! This was known as South Suffolk and N.Essex. Then there is Suffolk Coastal etc.

Birmingham is a classic example. If you take Birmingham as a local authority then you involve West Bromwich, Wolverhampton, Dudley etc and the population is nearing the 5 million mark! However Birmingham as a city includes Aston etc and this is city boundaries where Birmingham city council rules and not the LA of Birmingham.

Rule of thumb, look at signposts and where it says welcome to.... wherever, that is officially the city/town and then any areas outside which are controlled by the city or have links to interior city places, e.g. high school outside boundary but take in people from inside boundary as well as outside.

goat
12-11-2004, 23:52
also just to clarify I'm not actually from Sheffield and have actually only been there about 5 times in my life! I've lived in many places in my life including East London, South London, Chelmsford, the Wirral, Portsmouth, Ipswich and currently Southampton! So I'm taking a neutral view here! However I do like Sheffield, got a good atmosphere! Sheffield is 5th! Stats are always taken on a UK basis, not England! Also love the fact that the capital of Wales isn't there and about! Because it's not that big! But fantastic city!

OH YES!!

fhain29
14-11-2004, 21:49
Originally posted by goat


Birmingham is a classic example. If you take Birmingham as a local authority then you involve West Bromwich, Wolverhampton, Dudley etc and the population is nearing the 5 million mark! However Birmingham as a city includes Aston etc and this is city boundaries where Birmingham city council rules and not the LA of Birmingham.



That should be the other way round....

bean55788
15-11-2004, 01:05
Originally posted by Johnboy
Sheffield is the 4th largest city in England and 5th in the UK(Glasgow is larger than Sheffield)

thats correct :)

Captain_Scarlet
15-11-2004, 10:34
Originally posted by bean55788
thats correct :)
I used to think that until I saw Sheffield's stats showing that it is the third after Birmingham...

goat
15-11-2004, 10:52
No Sheffield is smaller than Manchester, both in population and area. And Wolverhampton and Dudley are cities/towns in their right so therefore are no part of Birmingham when it comes to census's such as size, whereas Aston is declared a suburb.

JonMMUK
15-11-2004, 14:04
According to the German Government's City Population Database (which uses the 2001 Census data) and which seems to be completely reliable and unbiased, the following is true:

POPULATION STATS FOR ENGLAND - ACTUAL CITY POPULATIONS

1. London - 7,172,091
2. Birmingham - 980,892
3. Liverpool - 469,017
4. Leeds - 443,247
5. SHEFFIELD - 439,866
6. Bristol - 420,556
7. Manchester - 394,269
8. Leicester - 330,547
9. Coventry - 303,475
10. Hull - 301,416

closely followed by Bradford, Stoke, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, Plymouth, Southampton, Reading, Derby, Dudley and Newcastle.

POPULATION STATS FOR ENGLAND - INCLUDING URBAN AGGLOMORATIONS

1. London (Greater London) - 8,278,251
2. Birmingham (West Midlands) - 2,284,093
3. Manchester (Greater Manchester) - 2,244,931
4. Leeds - 1,499,465
5. Newcastle - 879,996
6. Liverpool - 816,216
7. Nottingham - 666,358
8. SHEFFIELD - 640,720
9. Bristol - 551,066
10. Brighton - 461,181

closely followed by Portsmouth, Leicester, Bournemouth, Reading, Middlesbrough, Stoke, Coventry, Birkenhead, Southampton and Hull.

It seems that the Leeds listing for "urban agglomoration" includes sizeable places such as Bradford (294,000), Huddersfield (148,000), Dewsbury (50,000), Halifax (77,000) and Wakefield (75,000) - a bit of a cheat if you ask me.

The Manchester "urban agglomoration" includes Bolton, Stockport, Salford, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Wigan and MANY others.

The Birmingham "urban agglomoration" includes Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley, West Bromwich, Sutton Coldfield and Solihull, which all have over 100,000 inhabitants.

The Newcastle "urban agglomoration" includes Gateshead and South Shields, but NOT Sunderland, which is listed separately.

The Liverpool "urban agglomoration" includes St. Helens and Bootle, which are both pretty big; the Nottingham "urban agglomoration" includes Beeston, Clifton, Arnold and West Bridgford (also all pretty big).

Sheffield, on the other hand, only manages to capture Rotherham and Chapeltown - with a measly 139,000 between them. Barnsley, Doncaster, Hatfield and all the others are listed on their own.

I'd say we suffer because we are a standalone city!

nick2
15-11-2004, 14:31
Originally posted by JonMMUK
I'd say we suffer because we are a standalone city!

I'd say it's good that we are surrounded by countryside instead of smaller towns.

JonMMUK
15-11-2004, 14:34
Originally posted by nick2
I'd say it's good that we are surrounded by countryside instead of smaller towns.

Well, I agree in terms of how nice the actual city is... I was meaning more than we suffer in terms of our "league standing" in relation to our "larger" ahem ahem, neighbours.

nick2
15-11-2004, 14:37
Originally posted by JonMMUK
Well, I agree in terms of how nice the actual city is... I was meaning more than we suffer in terms of our "league standing" in relation to our "larger" ahem ahem, neighbours.

What does it matter, we could be a bigger city, but we could also end-up like Leeds, not a nice thought.

espadrille
15-11-2004, 16:52
I agree .It doesnt really matter whether we are the 4th or 5th largest City.
What happens here in Sheffield is the most important thing and the beauty of the surrounding countryside that is unique to us means that no other City can compete with that.
The only thing that Sheffield lacks in terms of location is its proximity to the sea.
Best seaside resort for beauty is maybe Filey, Whitby,Scarborough,Robin Hoods Bay or maybe north Wales, though it is a bit of a drive to get to them.

rickmiles85
17-11-2004, 09:54
Sorry but living in Wigan I wouldnt exactly say its nextdoor to Manchester. Its something like 20miles from the centre! Thats like going from Sheff to Barnsley and Donny easily.

Jim
17-11-2004, 10:55
What happens here in Sheffield is the most important thing and the beauty of the surrounding countryside that is unique to us means that no other City can compete with that.

Surely Manchester and Leeds could say the same thing?

msmouse
17-11-2004, 12:08
Of course - as far as I am concerned - Sheffield born and bred, as are my ancestors - Sheffield should be the Capital of Britain.

*Play patriotic music*

Nosferatu

Sheffield is made the capital of Britian in the book The Kraken Wakes by John Wyndham (cos everywhere else is flooded)

ptigga
17-11-2004, 13:51
Originally posted by msmouse
Sheffield is made the capital of Britian in the book The Kraken Wakes by John Wyndham (cos everywhere else is flooded)

Cool, I'm reading that at the moment - but I haven't got that far through it yet. It gives me nightmares.

Phanerothyme
23-11-2004, 09:31
Top 10 cities in the UK (by population)

1. London 7,074,265
2. Birmingham 1,020,589
3. Leeds 726,939
4. Glasgow 616,430
5. Sheffield 530,375
6. Bradford 483,422
7. Liverpool 467,995
8. Edinburgh 448,850
9. Manchester 430,818
10. Bristol 399,633


Top 10 cities in England (by population)

1. London 7,074,265
2. Birmingham 1,020,589
3. Leeds 726,939
4. Sheffield 530,375
5. Bradford 483,422
6. Liverpool 467,995
7. Manchester 430,818
8. Bristol 399,633
9. Kirklees 388,807
10. Croydon 338,200

Sources of Research:
National Statistics
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/top_ten_uk.asp
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/top_ten_england.asp

City Mayors
http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uk_topcities.html

Demographia:England Local Authorities - Ranked by Population
http://www.demographia.com/db-englar.htm

Mongabay
http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/UK.htm

The Free Dictionary
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/List%20of%20English%20cities%20by%20population

Bilge
15-12-2004, 13:36
Sheff is jointly on the 3rd level of England's cities [with many others]. It makes no sense whatever to refer to it as the 4th largest in England [or 5th in UK]. Visitors might think this means 4th or 5th most happening/vibrant/important city of all. Clearly it's nowhere near that.

The local authority populations and other long league tables aren't much help. In terms of England, it's more helpful to think of Sheffield as on the third 'rung', alongside lots of other places in that same position.

Don't compare Sheff with Manc as we will always fall short. Nottm and Lees are more valid comparisons. Lees centre seems better because it's more of a regional centre, it has more affluent people nearby using it than Sheff, and more nice old buildings in the centre because it wasn't bombed much in WW2. But the suburbs are no better or more cosmoplitan or whatever. Nottm has all those silly little boroughs and a shire county round it but it's effectively now a biggish metropolitan area.

Forget long lists or league tables, look at it this way...

1st level = London [the capital, massive 'world city', however you measure it, it's many million people and covers a huge area]

2nd level = Second city = Manchester or Birmingham 'city-region'. Some say Brum is the second city because historically the local authority with that name was always bigger than 'Manchester' which was always split into Salford etc next door. But Brum feels nowhere near as much a 'big city' place as Manc is. But let's not argue about that, just say they are jointly the second cities. Roughly 1 or 2 million people conurbations depending where you draw your lines. [If we're talking UK you'd have Glasgow here too. Lees would like to be in this bracket but isn't and never will be].

3rd level = Sheff, Lees, Brizzle, Newc, Nottm etc. Basically all the regional capitals plus a few more. All roughly 0.5 million people or slightly less, in real terms not council boundaries. [If UK then also Edinburgh, Cardiff etc].

4th level and below = everywhere else.

Sheff is never going to be in the 2nd level, it just needs to compare itself to those in level 3. In terms of the city centre it's behind most of them, but is improving fast.

t020
16-04-2005, 00:50
I've done a bit of digging on the official government census statistics for England & Wales, 2001 found at statistics.gov.uk:

London 7,172,091
Birmingham 977,087
Leeds 715,402
Sheffield 513, 234
Bradford 467,665
Liverpool 439,473
Manchester 392,819
Kirklees 388,567
Bristol 380,615

So, Sheffield officially 4th largest in England & Wales. Manchester being low down presumably because of how they distinguish between the city and the greater area.

UK wide, Glasgow would go between Leeds and Sheffield but I can't find the exact figure for that on the site.

GimmeSomePK
16-04-2005, 06:25
My un-official, un-substantiated and un-scientific opinion is based on having a big map of Leeds and a big map of Sheffield on my office wall for many monthes. Basically, Sheffield seems to cover a bigger area overall but is much more spread out, whereas Leeds althought slightly smaller, is more compact with less spaces between places.

I don't know the facts and figures on what is Leeds and what isn't but i'd say Sheffield may BE bigger, but Leeds SEEMS bigger as it would take longer driving from the centre before you feel you're out of the "city", if that makes sense? (although PT, i'd say Pudsey definately is, Wakefield is notLeeds.)

-PK-

mojoworking
16-04-2005, 07:13
Originally posted by t020
I've done a bit of digging on the official government census statistics for England & Wales, 2001 found at statistics.gov.uk:

London 7,172,091
Birmingham 977,087
Leeds 715,402
Sheffield 513, 234
Bradford 467,665
Liverpool 439,473
Manchester 392,819
Kirklees 388,567
Bristol 380,615

So, Sheffield officially 4th largest in England & Wales. Manchester being low down presumably because of how they distinguish between the city and the greater area.

UK wide, Glasgow would go between Leeds and Sheffield but I can't find the exact figure for that on the site.

Including Kirklees on the list is a bit cheeky.

Isn't it just a catch-all name for all the small and medium-sized towns that lie in the triangle between Sheffield, Manchester and Leeds? It's not really a city (or even one town) at all.

alchresearch
16-04-2005, 17:57
Originally posted by t020
So, Sheffield officially 4th largest in England & Wales. Manchester being low down presumably because of how they distinguish between the city and the greater area.


When you strip away 'Greater Manchester' (an awful term which everyone hates) and then remove Salford from the equation, Manchester is really quite small.

The Manchester postcode covers a huge area, but the villages and suburbs on the outskirts are in Wigan, Bolton, Bury or even Cheshire.

Yodameister
16-04-2005, 18:05
I think the reason that there is no definitive answer to this is because IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER!

It all comes down to semantics over what you include.

London started off as just a small connurbation around the Thames, but ended up with all the hotch potch of little towns around and about eventually becoming indistinguishable.

It just so happens that Salford is slightly more distinguishable from Manchester than, for example, Hillborough is from Sheffield.

sigmar14
16-04-2005, 19:52
Originally posted by sigmar14 [/i]
leed's counts with it's population otley pudsey bramley secroft and all other towns around it same as if sheffield and rotherham were combined populations the population would be over a million rotherham's population is 248,000 and sheffiels's is 512,000 so it would add up to something like 900,000 but sheffield hasen't got a metropolitren area like leeds by the way leeds is tiny!!! [/QUOTE]